The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1887-01-22
TUITION QUESTION,
HOME AAct q eerlous matter, the

ject matter; the object Of the statute;
the Judicial interpretation If such
legislative nower,and Of imilar laws
by English and American courts,
and especially AZ to, IL any, the
controlling of the State over the
NltgiONs rights and duties Of u
Dllix1n.
Thus In the presentation OF the
lssnes Involved, mada before our
Supreme Court, the efficient Dist
Atty If New Orleans, ~ reported
said, substantially, he did not con.
slider the o0nstitntionality OF the
statute involved tho inquiry whether
or not from its object or IN It's effect,
1t enerOached on any religious faith,
or enforced any religious Obssryan
ceS. He contentletl, IN behalf of the
statute, that our State Legislature
has the right to do everything Il
choses, it not specifically forbidden
By the constitution itself; and that,
as y consequence, whatever,in Their
opinion, would "promote the genel al
welfare" they may enforce by legis.
latI0n, even to al encr0achment on
the rights OF citizens, Further he
claimed that what he deMOminate,
"Sunalay law lpeislatiOn,n specific
authority il eMbracsd in tths police
power" Ut the State.
On the other hand, the attorney
asserting the WncOnstilUtionnlity OF
the law, conceded a constitutional
power of the legislature over what
he also, termed, ''SUnday Legislation ;"
He also, whiIe,appai emily, agreeing
with theDis'tAtt'y,as tOan unlimited
power OF the legislature. wherein mol
directly prohibited, yet he perceived
NO such prohibition as regards,
''Sunday laws" and recognized such
authority, under the grant Of police
power. His contention was, however.
that the exercise ofSuch police power
should in order to lind warrant,have
been exercised more generally than
had been done in this Instance; and
that the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
in the law, cOntlicteI with the
impartial equality secured By the
constitution to all citizens alike, an,l
OsrtRg tAcretO, the statute is umcon
slitntiOnal. Ii would not appear he
claimed az a matter OfinQuiry by the
court whether tbestaI ute encrOac hed
Oh religious faith and Observances.
Another OppO~er of the cOnstitu
liOnality of this statute, who has
written to the Times Democrat, over
the signature of Owls, while more
correctly cOmprehending the char
actsr OF this statute, as well az tIl,.
underlying principles hy which the
powers of American legislatures are
justly determined, yet seems to
consider the religious rights as not
matters Of governmental considera.
fiOn.
Nov, with all due Difference, the HERA1n
considers that such treatment of the issues
involved IN the pending controversy, fall short
Of the real inertia, ''''.'
while e II true, in comparing the relative
powers OF Federal and State government Il
may DO said that while those 81 the farmer az
special, and inclnde those only Granted ~
clearly lmpi1ed.t those OF the latter are general.
exeept wherein restricted, vet the unii,nitet
power % legislatuFsy even when not specially
Eestncted ~ the letter of the constitution. ina
nos ne the sanction Of Judicial authority, or
ano eommon sentiment of the people, Certain
reasTScs nghts Of the people haye ALWAYS been
tecekntze1. From the very nature 81 tho,
E1shta. snobsin free government. nuat he tLe
case. me occasional attempta TO ignore them
naye 1edln some instances rs in our OwR State
y NET T1.ng declared In the form of what is
Termed hil 81 Rights." NOt that such riehts
required this, but through . Jealous regard for
thesn. This reservation was directlv recoy.
nized IN the tenth amendment to the Federal
Consultation.
10 claim therefore, the cOnstitutionaiity Of
~ Statute, however obnoxious, however IN
" very nature: wrong or unjust, without con- |
Aldertng whether II conflicts with sucI, -. |
served rights u not correct presantatiou ~
me question Of esDstitutiDnality Of the 1tatnte
Are. therefore, these councillor. and orr |
1Ght 10 asserting, or submitting 10, the pre,,o.
.lAlol that snefS arc no rights belonging 10 the
pseple. snd growing Snt 81 their respective |
'ehgioAs faiths. which arc not inejudeI Ia the
,1jeess Of our civil g0vcFumenti and the nro. |
eesson Of the citizen In the eniovmank Of |
snlss u mot Legitimate end, = * govern.
When IL Is considered. that religious Gle
S~As@s AhA.Ag - hUuDf0ub IN tunDs that.
y least eoeval with the formation OF societv
no government, his acts. modes Of lie, relI-
sSns with his fellow nsan, arc infnencei n n
manner controlled. by religious faith. N a
'atafaI. ~ y 70 certain. their poassssion Il
ssentlsI y the enjoyment Of his life, liberty
" snch high order are the reIi0Ions faith.
tse people, 10 matters Of ci VII Koyernment
esd g be, that the Convention Of 1879 hy
] fe.anDIe, distinctly acknowledged q Huprame
sink ~ the auth0r ofAll good ROyern,nent
Nd Invoked His guidance. that thsv ,ri~hI
r1geFty establish their civil gOyornnieut,
10 guarantee the free and nntrasnwaioA
exercise Of religious faith TO every eifiSen' n
ssstefea not Of What creed Or faith, another
Asoee ~ our political installations was prS. !
, L 10 the bill Of rights. that .'NO law
ssll ~ passed respecting IN stabiishmsnt az ,
,snsg " prohibiting The free exercise
Tbs difference. IN this regard. bstva.n
nsefiesn EoyegnmeBts, Federat and Rlste =
w tbese OF other natiops, Is pointed ont ~ | !
snatoF JOhnsoni In bis ever haetlornbl IA ral.asE,
What ether nations call RELIGIOUS ieIa, atier :
se ealI religious tights, They are tigLts svey i
lstfSe1s abd cannot be surrendered h. anv | h
,VeFnmshI Tor they are not exeFeisai IL .
tittue 81 govefnmsHVs indnlgenee, bal M =
1kDtS, " Which government nala ta0I asnvt "a 4
KY W lNfivn q eitSehs, Aoacersr SDtaH.H a
laenee, nullke ~ ~ ether, rs the English, 4
vefpnsnts, u w0uld be ane0nstii attend for y
Use Legislature 10 establish AIRY part eniar \
'Iss.sp.ana pass statutes respecting the salhst Y